Maybe I'm wrong, but I am guessing most people that own MF cameras and/or digital backs also own some other cameras too. The premiss that it's either a DLSR or an MFDB never made sense to me.

Indeed I think most have a DSLR too, also amateurs. I have a Canon system that I use frequently in addition to my tech camera. The cost-conscious amateur don't necessarily need a pro DSLR system, but can instead have a decent low cost consumer DSLR with one or two all-around zooms, which will cost like $1000. When one has a MFD system all other cameras seem like a bargain so there's no problem to have an extra camera or two .

Q:Will Sony make a MF camera, salvaging parts from their mass-produced cameras as needed, resulting in a more stream-lined, modern and economical MF camera?

A:Did not Pentax allready do this?

Q: Will Sony introduce a MF CMOS sensor using similar technology as the D800 or D7100?

A: It seems that Sonys sensor division is willing to sell tech to anyone willing to pay the price. If there was a business-case to be made for developing and manufacturing a camera based on such a sensor, one might expect Sony or other manufacturers to have done this allready?

I have no dislike for the market or those that use MFD... however I do have an aversion to the marketing BS put out by some in the MFD industry, dealersand MFD fanboys.

Fandoyism always exist. I don't use the Red forum becauseOf the incredible level of fanboyism involved, just can't dealWith it. I had a tech question on red color and posted here,At the risk of having little or no imputs. This Forum is ratherSweet and more than blind fanboyism, I see passion.

About the big R&D, you mentionned Sony. I hacen't seen soFar a Sony dslr body in a plateau. No One use them. SonyIs huge compared to Nikon and it's not a straight equation.Not because they have the money they could reshape minolta.They lost in high-isos race, they lost in marketing, etc...Now they want to come in feature film territory and competeWith alexas and epics. They sold gazillion of f35, but in thatNiche market battle is far from being decided and theyHaven't been able to put Red or Arri out, despite its size andThe unlimited ressources they have. Red succeeded becauseThey had genuises and vision.

Q:Will Sony make a MF camera, salvaging parts from their mass-produced cameras as needed, resulting in a more stream-lined, modern and economical MF camera?

A:Did not Pentax allready do this?

Problem with Pentax and Leica S is that it's not a digital back, you cannot use it on a tech camera.

From an amateur perspective I think tech cameras are much more interesting than MF-DSLR type of cameras, easier for a manufacturer to make business with that (at least for a smaller player) when 135-DSLR competition is tough. To me MF-DSLR is a pro studio camera, hand-held with lots of flashes etc. For the amateur it's harder to see the advantages and why it would be more fun to use than a regular DSLR which works in a very similar way and actually is more capable in many aspects. Tech cameras on the other hand is totally different, they look cool, is all-mechanical and basic, it's like playing with large format film but without the mess of actually using film.

I'm looking into eventually getting a second hand Hasselblad H2 just for fun because they can be had cheap and I happen to have a H-mount back for my tech camera. But an MF-DSLR is not something that attracts on its own as a complement to my 135-DSLR. Maybe if I had a studio and worked a lot with flashes, but for amateurs I think landscape photography is a much larger genre and for that a tech cam is just so much more fun.

About the big R&D, you mentionned Sony. I hacen't seen soFar a Sony dslr body in a plateau. No One use them.

I think we need to give Sony DSLRs more time, they need a better and more complete lens fleet for the system to be able to become a serious alternative to Nikon and Canon. They need put more focus on pro and advanced use. They'll get there eventually, and I think their market share will grow at the cost of Nikon and Canon.

I think we need to give Sony DSLRs more time, they need a better and more complete lens fleet for the system to be able to become a serious alternative to Nikon and Canon. They need put more focus on pro and advanced use. They'll get there eventually, and I think their market share will grow at the cost of Nikon and Canon.

Yes, but they may succeed or may not. Panasonic for example, also a giant. Well, they had a big oportunity to compeat with the Canons (way smaller company) in this brand new market of dslrs-for-video. They had better electronics, better sensor implementation for video, bla bla...but they took some wrong decisions in some areas and they lost the oportunity. You find plenty of dslr Canon in video, included cine prods, very very little GH gear, even hacked. If their huge R&D is not targetted properly, if they lack of vision, or simply if they don't give the users the tools they want, size+money will not solve anything. This is a market that does not tolerate mistakes.

But I have the sensation that it's all about human ressources. A small company with the right people can defeat a giant. A big company with all the tech and R&D could loose battles if they make strategical mistakes (and they tend to make a lot). Then, they are very hard to correct. I doubt the pro market will embrace Sony dslrs as easy, even with a wide range of Zeiss signature lenses and pro service, not at least in the middle term. And they are probably not even interested in it.

Look what happens with Apple. Nobody knows what will be the roadmap for their next macpros and now that windows are not the BS they used to be, and can put on the table much more powerfull workstations at less costs, the pros still stay Apple because it's hard to change habits and licenses and handle as they can the lack of power and uncertainties. Even if Apple becomes completly obsolete for the niche market (as they are targetting clearly the mass market now), people with continue to use Macpros for decades, even if they know they are becoming obsolete and can have better for cheaper.

I've been closely in touch with the Autodesk Smoke, because it's a soft to know if you want to have jobs here in the cine industry (in the end discarted it). Well, Smoke only serves Mac. There is a huge claim from the users, even the all-life Mac fanboys to get a windows-linux version because they lack power. Autodesk users were in flame with that (no pun intended), but in the end nobody changes and well, they get used to what they got and end to build a satisfactory workflow. How many FCP7 users have shifted to Adobe or Avid when FCPx shows-up? hands-up? They didn't, they stayed FCP7 in the vast majority.I don't see this forum suddenly be Windows...even if Mac says: "boys, your niche doesn't interest us anymore, if you want to compose 3D in 6K in real time go to another drugstore". it's not going to happen and people will be using their macpros until the fan's blades desintegrate.

Fandoyism always exist. I don't use the Red forum becauseOf the incredible level of fanboyism involved, just can't dealWith it. I had a tech question on red color and posted here,At the risk of having little or no imputs. This Forum is ratherSweet and more than blind fanboyism, I see passion.

I agree with you Fred, the RED forums can be informative and a good place to find equipment, but they can also be over the top about the RED cult.

Then again, lately our forums have become very negative coming from a small number of participants.

I work a lot of hours.

It's now 2:46 am and I'm putting a first cut online and working on a creative treatment due tomorrow.

I only go on these forums to learn, share but mostly to enjoy a brief break from my work.

I don't like negativity born out of personal agendas. I like it when people share what works for them, I love it when they show interesting photographs, but just to be negative turns me off.

I almost dropped out completely, but instead decided to block a few participants and rarely read what they post even if I'm not logged in.

I don't see the point and btw: I don't really mind what anyone says as long as it's not purposely hurtful, as everyone has a different opinion.

What I find funny about these posts railing against larger than 35mm cameras is there is proof from the recent Phase One interview that most of these opinions are wrong.

In fact if I was the CEO of Phase I'd kind of have a chuckle to myself when I'd read that larger than 35mm is doomed, especially when they came off their best financial year.

Regardless of the minority though vocal opinion, medium format has more offerings and is more widespread today that it was 10 years ago. We may have lost Sinar backs, but gained Pentax on the lower price scale, Leica and new Phase backs at the high end, Hasselblad in the middle.

All of their softwares and workflows are much more professional than they were even 6 years ago and in the case of C-1, they are the gold standard for tethering for almost every format.

I also find it curious that the people that are 100% positive that certain equipment is too expensive, won't buy it anyway, so I really doubt if Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad or Leica really pay any attention to those comments.

Me, my Leaf and subsequent Phase backs have been very, very profitable and good for my business. My 2 RED 1's and Scarlets have been more than good for my business the last two years.

My old Leica M8 probably isn't that profitable, but a lot of fun.

If people don't believe that, fine, because I just chuckle to myself.

My take is that most professional photographers have more than one system and I just bought a 1dx, have another one planned to purchase and even with that don't see them as a replacement to my REDS or my Phase backs, even though the 1dx for me shoots a great file with very nice skin tones and good video.

They're just different cameras for different purposes.

Now I also plan this year plan to buy a new medium format camera. I'm waiting for the h5d to come out and test it within our workflow next to a Leaf and a Phase.

Don't know for sure if or what I'll buy, but i think this is going to be a very good year.

I agree with you Fred, the RED forums can be informative and a good place to find equipment, but they can also be over the top about the RED cult.

Then again, lately our forums have become very negative coming from a small number of participants.

I work a lot of hours.

It's now 2:46 am and I'm putting a first cut online and working on a creative treatment due tomorrow.

I only go on these forums to learn, share but mostly to enjoy a brief break from my work.

I don't like negativity born out of personal agendas. I like it when people share what works for them, I love it when they show interesting photographs, but just to be negative turns me off.

I almost dropped out completely, but instead decided to block a few participants and rarely read what they post even if I'm not logged in.

I don't see the point and btw: I don't really mind what anyone says as long as it's not purposely hurtful, as everyone has a different opinion.

What I find funny about these posts railing against larger than 35mm cameras is there is proof from the recent Phase One interview that most of these opinions are wrong.

In fact if I was the CEO of Phase I'd kind of have a chuckle to myself when I'd read that larger than 35mm is doomed, especially when they came off their best financial year.

Regardless of the minority though vocal opinion, medium format has more offerings and is more widespread today that it was 10 years ago. We may have lost Sinar backs, but gained Pentax on the lower price scale, Leica and new Phase backs at the high end, Hasselblad in the middle.

All of their softwares and workflows are much more professional than they were even 6 years ago and in the case of C-1, they are the gold standard for tethering for almost every format.

I also find it curious that the people that are 100% positive that certain equipment is too expensive, won't buy it anyway, so I really doubt if Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad or Leica really pay any attention to those comments.

Me, my Leaf and subsequent Phase backs have been very, very profitable and good for my business. My 2 RED 1's and Scarlets have been more than good for my business the last two years.

My old Leica M8 probably isn't that profitable, but a lot of fun.

If people don't believe that, fine, because I just chuckle to myself.

My take is that most professional photographers have more than one system and I just bought a 1dx, have another one planned to purchase and even with that don't see them as a replacement to my REDS or my Phase backs.

They're just different cameras for different purposes.

Now I also plan this year plan to buy a new medium format camera. I'm waiting for the h5d to come out and test it within our workflow next to a Leaf and a Phase.

Don't know for sure if or what I'll buy, but i think this is going to be a very good year.

IMO

BC

Nice to read you James,

I agree with you about the forum. I was also posting as a brief fresh break, and decided to leave because in part it was a time consummer black-hole, I was studdying, lots and lots of hours on post-prodand realised that Lu-La had started to be addictive for me and what was supposed to be breaf breaks became long distractions, posting each time more BS, just for posting and then it lacked sense and needed to be out. Well used, this is a great place to be and share.

I really do not understand those recent strategical constant bombings on MF that I've never seen at this point before. Yes, we always had those thread wars MF vs DSLRs, but when I remember those times, they were sort of fun to read, completly useless but fun; it was like those pub's conversations were everybody speaks loud, argue strong to argue, but everybody's drinking beer at the same table. But the recent tonalities are very different. Sometimes I even miss Ray compared to what's on air now.

I still find it kind of entertaining, and think it's reasonable well-contained. The war-threads are quite obvious which they are, and as they are long I assume many find them to be great entertainment still. If you think someone is trolling the best method is to ignore.

I haven't seen any drop in usefulness of the forum in terms of getting help with problems or asking about methods to do things etc. It can be very educational, I would have never ventured into MF digital if it weren't for this forum.

A bit unfortunate though is that it is difficult to constructively discuss things that in parts does criticize the current state of things, it seems like people have become polarized, either all for or all against. I e either the MF companies is doing everything perfect and earns nothing but praise and all our money, or they are rotten to the bone and deserve to go under.

I think the current companies are missing business opportunities by sticking with a business model that suited the film photography pro generation 15 years ago, and I do think the companies would be healthier with a larger customer base, and I think there are ways to achieve this, by becoming more visible on the net, making it easier to buy things, and having attractive entry-level products rather than just attractive high-end products, and looking more into advanced amateurs' interests.

which indeed was the stated plan all along: it was not an ongoing move into a new high-end product niche.

Does Sony want or need to spend many millions of dollars on a halo project like that (multiple good lenses are needed too!), done maybe to burnish the company's image a bit or just to satisfy some front-office egos, but losing a lot of money too? Hint: Sony is already losing a lot of money.

Anyway, a high end camera system cannot be done as a one-off like that: most customers would need assurance of continuity in things like lens development.

It is at least far less unlikely that Sony might become a MF sensor supplier. For example, the Pentax 645D currently uses a sensor from the now moribund Kodak/Truesense MF sensor catalog, so Pentax is probably looking for a new sensor source, and already works with Sony for sensors.

I have no dislike for the market or those that use MFD... however I do have an aversion to the marketing BS put out by some in the MFD industry, dealersand MFD fanboys.

So, you don't like the people running the MFD business and you just want to "get your own back"? So, it is a personal attack. This is interesting in light of want you do--celebrity portraiture and fashion. Talk about BS industries.

So, you don't like the people running the MFD business and you just want to "get your own back"? So, it is a personal attack. This is interesting in light of want you do--celebrity portraiture and fashion. Talk about BS industries.

Well, I believe what Fred was referencing re: marketing BS is the notion, which I've really only seen officially from Hasselblad and unofficially from kids, that to be a "Pro" you need medium format. This is complete BS and devalues photographers in favor of gear. As to attacking Phase's management or anyone else, I try to avoid reading too many of the "format wars" posts, so I'm not sure what else you are responding to.

As to fashion, well, there is lots of fluff on it but in the end its portraiture. So no, its not a bullshit industry. In fact, its more common to find art in fashion editorials and ads than in any other realm of commercial photography, and its often much better art that what purports to be fine art photography. Fashion editorials are conversations between a photographer and whatever s/he is responding to, which generally is a vibe that is on the cutting edge of consciousness, or at least the mood, of the culture, which is moving so fast now, and consuming so much "content", that it is hard to keep up. Sorry I went off on a tangent.

.......snip............and devalues photographers in favor of gear. As to attacking Phase's management or anyone else, I try to avoid reading too many of the "format wars" posts, so I'm not sure what else you are responding to.

T,

Sorry to go off topic.

I agree that equipment won't make the photographer more talented, or the photograph more compelling.

But as you know, today we live in a precarious world.

Client's want to be impressed.

I'm not saying I'd buy a camera only because it might impress a client, but if it did, I sure as heck wouldn't complain.

Everything counts.

Looks shouldn't matter but they do, because whether we like it or not, appearances count and in todays urber competitive world, everything matters.

From estimates and creative treatments, to crew, facilities, equipment and client service . . . everything is noticed, everything is compared, everything has a bottom line cost.

Clients are very serious about upping their game and getting all the value they can and they expect the same from all of their suppliers.

In response we have to run an expert, but not a lavish production. We have to use what works but it's a plus if the client looks at the set and sees equipment that they don't see at the local camera store.

Now, nobody start screaming on that last comment, because I am not comparing camera formats or comparing level of talent.

We all know a good photographer can get pretty much the same end results with a Nikon, Canon, Phase, Leaf or Hasselblad.

I think we also know that most working photographers also have more than one camera, usually more than one format.

I'm just commenting on what MY clients notice, what they respect, what they consider to be a positive experience and outcome.

This photo is a example of the above, from our shoot last week.

By the last day Friday we could consolidate the wardrobe truck to the RV, the prop truck was not needed and the Lighting and Grip Van was consolidated to one truck so we returned two production vehicles the night before and saved a few dollars. 5 years ago we wouldn't have bothered, actually 5 years ago we would have had two RV's, just for comfort.

My point is 5 or 6 years ago this scene would look much different with many more vehicles, people and equipment.

Still, saving money is good and I guess we could have cut the RV and dressed the model in the back of a van, but there is a point where comfort and appearances matter.

Should anybody run out and buy a hasselblad to look more professional...No....I don't think so, but if you enjoy that camera or format and want to use it, it gets you the results and maybe a client notices, there is no downside to that.

Well, I believe what Fred was referencing re: marketing BS is the notion, which I've really only seen officially from Hasselblad and unofficially from kids, that to be a "Pro" you need medium format. This is complete BS and devalues photographers in favor of gear.

I have to wonder, if these kids can't recognise BS when they see it then perhaps they're not cut out for the industry and should consider a career in dry walling? Are they really that naive?

I agree that equipment won't make the photographer more talented, or the photograph more compelling.

But as you know, today we live in a precarious world.

Client's want to be impressed.

I'm not saying I'd buy a camera only because it might impress a client, but if it did, I sure as heck wouldn't complain.

Everything counts.

Looks shouldn't matter but they do, because whether we like it or not, appearances count and in todays urber competitive world, everything matters.

From estimates and creative treatments, to crew, facilities, equipment and client service . . . everything is noticed, everything is compared, everything has a bottom line cost.

Clients are very serious about upping their game and getting all the value they can and they expect the same from all of their suppliers.

In response we have to run an expert, but not a lavish production. We have to use what works but it's a plus if the client looks at the set and sees equipment that they don't see at the local camera store.

Now, nobody start screaming on that last comment, because I am not comparing camera formats or comparing level of talent.

We all know a good photographer can get pretty much the same end results with a Nikon, Canon, Phase, Leaf or Hasselblad.

I think we also know that most working photographers also have more than one camera, usually more than one format.

I'm just commenting on what MY clients notice, what they respect, what they consider to be a positive experience and outcome.

This photo is a example of the above, from our shoot last week.

By the last day Friday we could consolidate the wardrobe truck to the RV, the prop truck was not needed and the Lighting and Grip Van was consolidated to one truck so we returned two production vehicles the night before and saved a few dollars. 5 years ago we wouldn't have bothered, actually 5 years ago we would have had two RV's, just for comfort.

My point is 5 or 6 years ago this scene would look much different with many more vehicles, people and equipment.

Still, saving money is good and I guess we could have cut the RV and dressed the model in the back of a van, but there is a point where comfort and appearances matter.

Should anybody run out and buy a hasselblad to look more professional...No....I don't think so, but if you enjoy that camera or format and want to use it, it gets you the results and maybe a client notices, there is no downside to that.

IMO

BC

BC,

I agree with you 100%. All I am saying is that Blad's marketing, or at least that one sentence, is ridiculous.

If you are shooting jobs with honey wagons, good craft services and your crew isn't hung over and scaming work from the client, you probably own an MFD or at least have one on set. Image is important, but Blad's messaging falls flat. The copy writer needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more subtle that conveys the importance of image without generating all this ill will.

I have to wonder, if these kids can't recognise BS when they see it then perhaps they're not cut out for the industry and should consider a career in dry walling? Are they really that naive?

Millenials are confounding. I don't think they are cut out for much. The ones that do sheet rock install are more savvy about life than the college educated kids. I'm in advertising now, at an agency, and a big part of my job is finding messages that resonate with millenials. You know what I've found, after countless focus groups? The higher the socio-economic chain the more niave and sentimental they are. They want to be street smart but are prone sentimental journies. They distrust advertising but are voracious consumers of goods, advertising, and propoganda. You can sell these kids wool scarves to wear in the summer, because they have some Bloomsbury fantasy floating around in their heads and think scarves are signifier of their "life style". I could go on, and on, and on. In fact, I attended a convention on the topic at MoMA last year. The upshot: the kids are not alright.